threaten'd to excommunicate them, if they did not clofe with his Defigns, as it is exprefs'd in the Append. pag. 42. tho you exprefs it, if they would not submit to his Decifion: I prefume, this was to infinuate, that they refused to fubmit to fome Decifion of Faith, whereas the whole Difpute was about a meer Party. caufe. But they refolutely anfwer'd, that if he came to excommunicate them, he should himself return excommunicated.

Tis very true that Mr Talon quotes this bold Anfwer of the French Bishops to Gregory the 4th. But you are not content with this, but likewife tell that in the Proceedings of the Parliament of Pa ris the fame Language is ufed to Innocent XI. For your Words are thefe. And the Proceedings of the Parliament of Paris tell the Pope [i. e. Innocent XI. } that his Bishoprick, &c. ----- And that by taking upon him to excommunicate others unjustly, and where his Power did not reach, he had excommunicated himself. Yet there is not a Word of all this in Mr Talon's Speech; as every one may be fatisfied, that will but give him. felf the Trouble to read your Appendix.

Nay you make the French Advocate General far outdo the French Bishops. For Gregory I V. was by them only threaten'd, that if he came to excommunicate them, he should himself-return excommunicated. The Harshness of which Expreffion is very much mollified by M. Talon himself Appen. p. 42. 43. But poor Innocent XI. (if you can make good your Quotation) is by the Advocate General pofitively declared excommunicated for having taken upon him to excommunicate others unjustly, and where his Power did not reach. And you make this fmart Reflection upon it that he was then fo far from being Head, that he was not so much as a Member of the Church. But fince the Reflection is grounded upon a Fact of your own

Na

fruitful Invention (which I affure you will not make you pass for the niceft Lover of Truth in the World) we may piously hope, that Innocent XI. died not only a Member, but the Head of the Catholick Church.

But the French Bishops telling Pope Gregory, that if he came to excommunicate them, he should himself reBurn excommunicated, puts you upon these vehement Interrogatories. Now what is that Head can be excommunicated by it's Members? What is that Supremacy can be limited and controlled by it's Subjects? Which I shall endeavour to match with fome Interrogatories. of the fame kind. viz. What Head both of Church and State is that Man, whofe Head can be cut off by his Subjects? And what is that Sovereignty, which can be limited and controll'd by Laws? Now whatever Answer you'l give to these impertinent Questions of mine, will probably ferve to answer yours.

But, to return to what we were saying before concerning Councils, tho the Supremacy was given to St Peter, and by Confequence to his Succeffors in Order to perpetuate the Form of Church-government establish'd by Christ, yet it is no Article of Faith with us, that St Peter's Infallibility, which he had in common with the other Apoftles, was likewise to be transmitted to his Succeffors. And therefore we are only fure, that Christ has promised Infallibility to his Church, the Representative whereof is a General Council.

S. 20.

Of General Councils.

G.Hich, as I told you, never was, and is next to impoffible ever should be. And you have faid gives up your whole Founda

» what

tion. For the Popes, and not Councils pretend to be « the Succeffors of St Peter, and Heirs of all the Pro- « mifes made to him. pag. 23. «.

L. Not of all with your good Leave, Sr. For Chrift promised St Peter, that he should be a Martyr. Joh. 21. v. 18. But all Popes pretend not to be Martyrs. The Popes are therefore the Succeffors of St Peter, and as fuch the fupreme Governors of the Church. But General Councils are the Reprefentatives of this Church, and to her Christ promised Infallibi lity. So that you are grievously out in Saying, that we give up the whole Foundation in not Lodging the Infallibility as well as Supremacy in the Pope. For this is a Question difputed amongst our Divines, and the Negative as well as Affirmative may be held without endangering the Foundation of the Church.

As to your Repeating, that there never was a General Council, I refer you to my former Anfwer, and am forry you can entertain the fame Whim fo long together.

G. My Lord, you are not agreed among your- « felves concerning general Councils. Bellarmin (de « Conc. L. 1. C. 6.) gives a Lift of General Councils, « which are to be rejected. Concilia generalia repro- « bata. Some for not being approved by the Pope; « fome for Herefy, and fome (he might have faid « all) as not being received by the Universal Church. « But he meant only the Church of Rome. P. 23. "

L. Under Favour, Sr, he meant the whole Church in Communion with the See of Rome; which is call'd the Catholick or Universal Church not only by Bellarmin, but also by St Austin (contra Epift fund. C. 4.) and indeed the whole Current of Orthodox Fathers. And this Church has received a great many general Councils; the Decrees whereof in Doctrinal Points are infallible Rules of Faith. But pray go on.

» G. Ch. 7. is of General Councils partly confirm'd, and partly reprobated. And Chap. 8. is of general » Councils neither manifeftly approved, nor manifeft»ly rejected. This is going through all the Degrees of Uncertainty. And Chap. 5. and de Rom. Pont. L. 4. C. 11. he fays, that feveral Things in those » Councils allow'd to be General were foifted in by He »reticks, he knows not how. This was to get rid of fome Objections against thofe Councils, he could not answer otherwife---

L. Sr, you should have faid, against some private Opinions of his own. But let us hear out the reft of your Story.

» G. And (de Eccl. Milit. C. 16.) he quotes the laft Council of Lateran condemning the Council of Bafil, which he fays was at firft a true Oecumenical » Council, and infallible, but afterwards turn'd into a Schifmatical Conventicle, and was of no Autho»rity at all. pag. 23. 24.

L, Well, Sr, the Sum of all this is, that Bellarmin rejects fome Councils abfolutely, which falfly ftiled themselves General. As that of Sardica confifting of 76 Arian Bishops, who feparated themselves from the true Council of Sardica, yet call'd themfelves by that Name, and condemn'd St Athanafius. The other reprobate General Councils mention'd by Bellarmin are of the fame Kidney; But I hope you do not imagine we place the Infallibility in fuch Concils as thefe. He likewife fays that the Authority of fome Councils call'd General is doubtful, and that fome are partly approved, and partly rejected; which you fay is Going through all the Degrees of Uncertainty. But what do you pretend to infer from thence a

G. My Lord, I infer from it that no Infallibility can be placed in General Councils,

L. Sr, if we had no Councils but of a suspected

108 and uncertain Authority, I should easily subscribe to what you fay. But have we not general Councils enough unanimoufly received and approved by the whole Body of the Catholick Church, and in which all doctrinal Points of Controverfy are fully and clearly determined? These then are the Councils, the Decifions whereof we regard as infallible Rules of Faith: because they are the true Reprefentatives of that Church, to which Chrift has promifed his perpetual Affiftance, and which in all Ages is the Pillar and Ground of Truth no less than she was in the first Age of Christianity. So that the Spuriousneß or Uncertainty of fome Councils ftiled General, and the Illegality of fome Part of others cannot be turn'd into an Argument of any Weight against the Certainty and Infallibility of other Councils univerfally recei ved and approved, any more than the Authority of legal Parliaments can be queftion'd, because there have been fome very illegal ones, fome partly legal, and partly illegal, and others of a doubtful Au thority.

But, to inftance in a Cafe exactly parallel, Sr, there were purious Gofpels handed about even in the Time of the Apoftles. And Dr Walton an eminent Proteftant Writer affures us pofitively (for the Fact is unquestionable) that the Book of Revelations, and Some other Parts of the New Teftament were doubted of for fame Ages. In Proleg. C. 4. §. 6. pag. 31. Thus likewife the Books of Ezra are partly Canonical, and partly Apocriphal in the Judgment of your Church as well as ours: Nay you have likewife split the Prophecy of Daniel, the two laft Chapters whereof are wholly omitted in your Bible. Here then we have certain purions Scriptures entirely rejected, fome of the Canonical ones doubted of for several Ages, and Others partly approved and partly rejected: Yet I hope